Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.
Real Estate Broker · Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Toledo Columbus & Akron, OH · Member since 2013 · 31k+ posts · 20k+ votes
Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.
Most Popular Reply
Brian BurkePro Member
Investor · Santa Rosa, CA · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 7k+ votes@James Wise you're right about California's bad leadership. But that's not why it's on fire.
Here is how I get my perspective: I was a firefighter in CA for about a decade in my former life. The house I'm sitting in right now is on a hill with 270 degree views and I can see about ten miles in each direction. Nearly every house I can see from here burned to the ground in 2017, including the house that was on this very lot and almost every house on this street. 5,300 in total. Thankfully, at that time I lived just a bit to the south and the winds blew the fire right by my house, missing by 3,000 feet. I woke up that morning to a wall of fire as far as I could see.
I drove to my office, everything around me was on fire including the landscaping and dumpsters in the parking lot--no firefighters around. But the office itself didn't burn.
The fire had traveled ten miles in about 3 hours. You can't get mutual aid (with a several hour ETA) in time to stop it. The calvary arrives just in time to mop up.
I have a second home in Maui, and as I look out in one direction the entire town I used to see burned to the ground in 2023. The wind blew that fire to our south, this time missing us by almost a mile. This is becoming all too familiar, and yet I'm extraordinarily lucky that I suffered no direct fire loss in any of these.
In both of these fires, hydrants didn't work. Firefighting resources were overwhelmed. Winds were near or exceeding hurricane force. The fire created it's own weather including "fire tornados".
Part of the reasons hydrants didn't work was some water storage was already depleted for maintenance. Power was shut off to prevent it from starting more fire (or was killed by the fire) and this power is what drives the municipal water pumps. Homes burned, leaving their water service lines severed and freely flowing water onto the ground, depleting the pressure. It's just chaos.
Suggestions above include:
To not rebuild and convert the land over to parkland. How do you buy out over 5,000 homeowners? Infeasible.
To build out of concrete block. Ok, but from my house I can see what used to be a K-mart about a mile away. It was made out of concrete block and it burned to the ground, along with a lot of other concrete and brick structures. My next door neighbor built their house out of poured in place concrete. Will it help? Maybe. The building codes are pretty strict. Ours is built with stucco siding, concrete tile roof, tempered windows, self-closing soffit and crawl space vents (they melt when exposed to heat). A lot of structures go up because the intense radiant heat from the wildfire ignites contents inside the home through the windows, or the embers enter the attics and crawl spaces through the vents--so just building from block won't be a cure.
Build with steel. These fires are so hot even the steel structures melted and burned. The winds were so strong and fire so hot there were cars turned upside down in driveways, and then melted.
The bottom line is that 100 mph winds combined with dry grass and just about any ignition source is unstoppable once it gets going. If the fire can be knocked down in its infancy you can save entire towns. And that's what usually happens--there are hundreds of fires no one hears about. But the ones that aren't stopped right away and get a head on them, when close to an urban area, with wind like this, will cause extreme devastation. No amount of water will stop it.
And don't even get me started on insurance. My $7,500 policy was "non-renewed" and I only got two quotes: $42K and $92K. Then by a stroke of luck I found another quote for $13K. If that carrier doesn't stay afloat it's pretty dismal.
176 Replies
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yCan’t sell before clean up, Matthew, no one will buy a toxic waste site.
Quote from @Matthew Paul:
" I am from the government , and I am here to help "
This whole mess will be tied up in courts for years , between insurance companies , environmental groups , homeowners , it will just drag on . Anyone with insurance will be smart and take the money , sell the lot and move on .
You are absolutely right, though, the whole thing will take years to play out. - Severna Park, MD · Member since 2013 · 7k+ posts · 7k+ votes1y
@John Clark There isnt much left thats toxic , it all went into the atmosphere .
- 1yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Quote from @Matthew Paul:
@John Clark There isnt much left thats toxic , it all went into the atmosphere .
Not an expert here but my Brother is a heavy equipment operator in Northern CA and did a lot of the fire clean up when those fires happened and he mentioned contractor might need hazard waste removal license.. FWIW - Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @Matthew Paul:
@John Clark There isnt much left thats toxic , it all went into the atmosphere .
That's not what I heard. Would simplify matters, though.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @Matthew Paul:
@John Clark There isnt much left thats toxic , it all went into the atmosphere .
Not an expert here but my Brother is a heavy equipment operator in Northern CA and did a lot of the fire clean up when those fires happened and he mentioned contractor might need hazard waste removal license.. FWIW
Jay, please tell that to Jim, whose unicorns and fairy dust response (earlier in the thread) to the problem is as follows:
"Also a non-starter is your hyperbolae; "toxic waste lot's"...... Really John, really."
I do wonder just how many people are going to leave California permanently from all this. It might even wind up losing another seat in the House of Representatives. - 1yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @Matthew Paul:
@John Clark There isnt much left thats toxic , it all went into the atmosphere .
Not an expert here but my Brother is a heavy equipment operator in Northern CA and did a lot of the fire clean up when those fires happened and he mentioned contractor might need hazard waste removal license.. FWIW
Jay, please tell that to Jim, whose unicorns and fairy dust response (earlier in the thread) to the problem is as follows:
"Also a non-starter is your hyperbolae; "toxic waste lot's"...... Really John, really."
I do wonder just how many people are going to leave California permanently from all this. It might even wind up losing another seat in the House of Representatives.
the hazard waste is just an endorsement to the contractors license its a simple course you take .. kind of like home inspectors who are certified for lead paint removal or contractors certified for lead paint removal. its not a huge deal just a box to check.. - Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1y
Quote from @John Clark:
Can’t sell before clean up, Matthew, no one will buy a toxic waste site.Quote from @Matthew Paul:
" I am from the government , and I am here to help "
This whole mess will be tied up in courts for years , between insurance companies , environmental groups , homeowners , it will just drag on . Anyone with insurance will be smart and take the money , sell the lot and move on .
You are absolutely right, though, the whole thing will take years to play out.Wrong John, yet again.....
You really don't know a single thing about Real Estate do you John?
YES, a person CAN sell without total site cleanup from a house fire. FACTS.
- Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1yHow many fire claims you dealt with John?
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @Matthew Paul:
@John Clark There isnt much left thats toxic , it all went into the atmosphere .
Not an expert here but my Brother is a heavy equipment operator in Northern CA and did a lot of the fire clean up when those fires happened and he mentioned contractor might need hazard waste removal license.. FWIW
Jay, please tell that to Jim, whose unicorns and fairy dust response (earlier in the thread) to the problem is as follows:
"Also a non-starter is your hyperbolae; "toxic waste lot's"...... Really John, really."
I do wonder just how many people are going to leave California permanently from all this. It might even wind up losing another seat in the House of Representatives.
Me, MULTIPLE.
I actually had a fire MYSELF, yes personally.
I've navigated multiple rental property fires, nearly a dozen over the decades.
And yes, I've done fire restoration projects.
I laid out in detail the details and steps of the clean up. You just keep twisting things John so clearly your here to promote an agenda and not for intelligent discourse. - Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Can’t sell before clean up, Matthew, no one will buy a toxic waste site.Quote from @Matthew Paul:
" I am from the government , and I am here to help "
This whole mess will be tied up in courts for years , between insurance companies , environmental groups , homeowners , it will just drag on . Anyone with insurance will be smart and take the money , sell the lot and move on .
You are absolutely right, though, the whole thing will take years to play out.Wrong John, yet again.....
You really don't know a single thing about Real Estate do you John?
YES, a person CAN sell without total site cleanup from a house fire. FACTS.
Oh, they can sell, Jim, just like one can sell "subject to." Who, though, is going to buy, and at what price, before clean up?
- Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1y
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Can’t sell before clean up, Matthew, no one will buy a toxic waste site.Quote from @Matthew Paul:
" I am from the government , and I am here to help "
This whole mess will be tied up in courts for years , between insurance companies , environmental groups , homeowners , it will just drag on . Anyone with insurance will be smart and take the money , sell the lot and move on .
You are absolutely right, though, the whole thing will take years to play out.Wrong John, yet again.....
You really don't know a single thing about Real Estate do you John?
YES, a person CAN sell without total site cleanup from a house fire. FACTS.
Oh, they can sell, Jim, just like one can sell "subject to." Who, though, is going to buy, and at what price, before clean up?
Generally it's a mix between (a) spec builders, the type who specialize in doing in-fill lot's (b) investors, as it is a normalized flip strategy (c) owner occupants, especially in high desire neighborhoods, who are a-ok with taking on the project and even some are excited that they get to build a new home in often old neighborhoods.
Yeah, it's a very normalized thing.
The current property owners take a settlement check from insurance, and vs rebuild they sell. Most often it's in free & clear properties but, in a high enough desire area like these, and with low enough mortgage balance, yup, some can 100% get enough on the sale to have it all make sense because as @Jay Hinrichs has pointed out that in these areas the majority value is in the land not the structures on the land.
So yes, I guarantee we will see people selling as-is and walking away.
And I also guarantee there is assorted investors right now getting prepped on marketing campaigns to try and market to these people to make purchase offers.
This is some of the highest valued residential land in the country.
- 1yScott ScovilleBusiness MemberReal Estate Agent · Sacramento, CA · Member since 2019 · 502 posts · 274 votes
CA is a very large state. I invest in Sacramento. It's the number 1 place people are relocating to from the SF Bay Area, and we're starting to see more people move up from SoCal. Still seeing good rent and price appreciation, and haven't had any problems finding HOI for our properties. You just need to be diligent, due your research, have a team, and make good sound decisions.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yYour entire "detail and steps of the clean up" are, and I quote:
Quote from @James Hamling:
How many fire claims you dealt with John?Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @Matthew Paul:
@John Clark There isnt much left thats toxic , it all went into the atmosphere .
Not an expert here but my Brother is a heavy equipment operator in Northern CA and did a lot of the fire clean up when those fires happened and he mentioned contractor might need hazard waste removal license.. FWIW
Jay, please tell that to Jim, whose unicorns and fairy dust response (earlier in the thread) to the problem is as follows:
"Also a non-starter is your hyperbolae; "toxic waste lot's"...... Really John, really."
I do wonder just how many people are going to leave California permanently from all this. It might even wind up losing another seat in the House of Representatives.
Me, MULTIPLE.
I actually had a fire MYSELF, yes personally.
I've navigated multiple rental property fires, nearly a dozen over the decades.
And yes, I've done fire restoration projects.
I laid out in detail the details and steps of the clean up. You just keep twisting things John so clearly your here to promote an agenda and not for intelligent discourse.
" And some level of clean-up will most likely be done for all private property via local government, as is SOP for disaster cleanup.Also SOP for such is individual property owners will, individually, address total site cleanup in concert with there insurance providers.
So the whole leaving toxic waste sites BS is just that, BS hyperbole"
***
No detail there, Jim, just a lot of wishful thinking on your part and two contradictory statements to boot -- that government will handle all the clean up (that's "big government" by the way) and that individual property owners "will" address "total site cleanup" with "[their] insurance providers."
So you agree to big government and are utterly silent as to unwilling/unable/irresponsible land owners and clean ups, and that's just for starters. Stop ignoring your own contradictions.
And of the fires and fire restorations you've dealt with, Jim, how many involved total and absolute destruction of the premises?
"Claims" are an insurance matter. I've dealt with claims. Eminent domain proceedings, too. Comes with the territory of being a litigation/trial attorney for almost 40 years. Property owner, too.
What's your experience with government powers for rezoning property use after a disaster? I'll give you a hint; the powers are very extensive, and for good reason.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Can’t sell before clean up, Matthew, no one will buy a toxic waste site.Quote from @Matthew Paul:
" I am from the government , and I am here to help "
This whole mess will be tied up in courts for years , between insurance companies , environmental groups , homeowners , it will just drag on . Anyone with insurance will be smart and take the money , sell the lot and move on .
You are absolutely right, though, the whole thing will take years to play out.Wrong John, yet again.....
You really don't know a single thing about Real Estate do you John?
YES, a person CAN sell without total site cleanup from a house fire. FACTS.
Oh, they can sell, Jim, just like one can sell "subject to." Who, though, is going to buy, and at what price, before clean up?
Generally it's a mix between (a) spec builders, the type who specialize in doing in-fill lot's (b) investors, as it is a normalized flip strategy (c) owner occupants, especially in high desire neighborhoods, who are a-ok with taking on the project and even some are excited that they get to build a new home in often old neighborhoods.
Yeah, it's a very normalized thing.
The current property owners take a settlement check from insurance, and vs rebuild they sell. Most often it's in free & clear properties but, in a high enough desire area like these, and with low enough mortgage balance, yup, some can 100% get enough on the sale to have it all make sense because as @Jay Hinrichs has pointed out that in these areas the majority value is in the land not the structures on the land.
So yes, I guarantee we will see people selling as-is and walking away.
And I also guarantee there is assorted investors right now getting prepped on marketing campaigns to try and market to these people to make purchase offers.
This is some of the highest valued residential land in the country.
I agree. There still has to be clean up -- and you need to get straight on who does it (big government) and there is going to be redesign and rezoning so that fires such as these can be defended against or prevented. A big part of that will be condos and multi-family apartments in place of the single family homes that WERE there. Difficult to defend places -- hillsides with limited transportation options, etc. -- won't be allowed to rebuild at all. Proven to be too dangerous.
So will there be redevelopment? You bet. On condo/MFH terms for a great deal of it, with extensive revamping of transportation systems. - 1yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Can’t sell before clean up, Matthew, no one will buy a toxic waste site.Quote from @Matthew Paul:
" I am from the government , and I am here to help "
This whole mess will be tied up in courts for years , between insurance companies , environmental groups , homeowners , it will just drag on . Anyone with insurance will be smart and take the money , sell the lot and move on .
You are absolutely right, though, the whole thing will take years to play out.Wrong John, yet again.....
You really don't know a single thing about Real Estate do you John?
YES, a person CAN sell without total site cleanup from a house fire. FACTS.
Oh, they can sell, Jim, just like one can sell "subject to." Who, though, is going to buy, and at what price, before clean up?
Generally it's a mix between (a) spec builders, the type who specialize in doing in-fill lot's (b) investors, as it is a normalized flip strategy (c) owner occupants, especially in high desire neighborhoods, who are a-ok with taking on the project and even some are excited that they get to build a new home in often old neighborhoods.
Yeah, it's a very normalized thing.
The current property owners take a settlement check from insurance, and vs rebuild they sell. Most often it's in free & clear properties but, in a high enough desire area like these, and with low enough mortgage balance, yup, some can 100% get enough on the sale to have it all make sense because as @Jay Hinrichs has pointed out that in these areas the majority value is in the land not the structures on the land.
So yes, I guarantee we will see people selling as-is and walking away.
And I also guarantee there is assorted investors right now getting prepped on marketing campaigns to try and market to these people to make purchase offers.
This is some of the highest valued residential land in the country.
I agree. There still has to be clean up -- and you need to get straight on who does it (big government) and there is going to be redesign and rezoning so that fires such as these can be defended against or prevented. A big part of that will be condos and multi-family apartments in place of the single family homes that WERE there. Difficult to defend places -- hillsides with limited transportation options, etc. -- won't be allowed to rebuild at all. Proven to be too dangerous.
So will there be redevelopment? You bet. On condo/MFH terms for a great deal of it, with extensive revamping of transportation systems.
But john do you think the market will accept condos MF in pacific Palisades ??? those owners bought sfr on big nice lots for a reason.. Myself I am not sure that those buyers would go for tight living conditions that are condos and for sure are not going to be renters.. - Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Can’t sell before clean up, Matthew, no one will buy a toxic waste site.Quote from @Matthew Paul:
" I am from the government , and I am here to help "
This whole mess will be tied up in courts for years , between insurance companies , environmental groups , homeowners , it will just drag on . Anyone with insurance will be smart and take the money , sell the lot and move on .
You are absolutely right, though, the whole thing will take years to play out.Wrong John, yet again.....
You really don't know a single thing about Real Estate do you John?
YES, a person CAN sell without total site cleanup from a house fire. FACTS.
Oh, they can sell, Jim, just like one can sell "subject to." Who, though, is going to buy, and at what price, before clean up?
Generally it's a mix between (a) spec builders, the type who specialize in doing in-fill lot's (b) investors, as it is a normalized flip strategy (c) owner occupants, especially in high desire neighborhoods, who are a-ok with taking on the project and even some are excited that they get to build a new home in often old neighborhoods.
Yeah, it's a very normalized thing.
The current property owners take a settlement check from insurance, and vs rebuild they sell. Most often it's in free & clear properties but, in a high enough desire area like these, and with low enough mortgage balance, yup, some can 100% get enough on the sale to have it all make sense because as @Jay Hinrichs has pointed out that in these areas the majority value is in the land not the structures on the land.
So yes, I guarantee we will see people selling as-is and walking away.
And I also guarantee there is assorted investors right now getting prepped on marketing campaigns to try and market to these people to make purchase offers.
This is some of the highest valued residential land in the country.
I agree. There still has to be clean up -- and you need to get straight on who does it (big government) and there is going to be redesign and rezoning so that fires such as these can be defended against or prevented. A big part of that will be condos and multi-family apartments in place of the single family homes that WERE there. Difficult to defend places -- hillsides with limited transportation options, etc. -- won't be allowed to rebuild at all. Proven to be too dangerous.
So will there be redevelopment? You bet. On condo/MFH terms for a great deal of it, with extensive revamping of transportation systems.
But john do you think the market will accept condos MF in pacific Palisades ??? those owners bought sfr on big nice lots for a reason.. Myself I am not sure that those buyers would go for tight living conditions that are condos and for sure are not going to be renters..Unfortunately there will be a smaller population. People will move to escape taxes and insurance, and others (me included) only want single-family homes and shudder at the thought of condos and apartments (which, ironically, I have).
So will demand be as high? No. If you want to live in the area, though, then you're going to have to compromise. The days of "I built here, now save me" are over.
You also have the problem that even if you could build a single-family house in the area (and there will be some), your insurance premiums are going to be enormous. Jim's bleating about government being involved. I got news for him: the insurance companies are going to refuse to insure -- period -- or are going to charge premiums that would make Elon Musk wince. That's where the real negative effect on the market will be.
So it's condos in the Palisades. Might help bring prices down for the middle class who never thought they could live there..
- 1yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Can’t sell before clean up, Matthew, no one will buy a toxic waste site.Quote from @Matthew Paul:
" I am from the government , and I am here to help "
This whole mess will be tied up in courts for years , between insurance companies , environmental groups , homeowners , it will just drag on . Anyone with insurance will be smart and take the money , sell the lot and move on .
You are absolutely right, though, the whole thing will take years to play out.Wrong John, yet again.....
You really don't know a single thing about Real Estate do you John?
YES, a person CAN sell without total site cleanup from a house fire. FACTS.
Oh, they can sell, Jim, just like one can sell "subject to." Who, though, is going to buy, and at what price, before clean up?
Generally it's a mix between (a) spec builders, the type who specialize in doing in-fill lot's (b) investors, as it is a normalized flip strategy (c) owner occupants, especially in high desire neighborhoods, who are a-ok with taking on the project and even some are excited that they get to build a new home in often old neighborhoods.
Yeah, it's a very normalized thing.
The current property owners take a settlement check from insurance, and vs rebuild they sell. Most often it's in free & clear properties but, in a high enough desire area like these, and with low enough mortgage balance, yup, some can 100% get enough on the sale to have it all make sense because as @Jay Hinrichs has pointed out that in these areas the majority value is in the land not the structures on the land.
So yes, I guarantee we will see people selling as-is and walking away.
And I also guarantee there is assorted investors right now getting prepped on marketing campaigns to try and market to these people to make purchase offers.
This is some of the highest valued residential land in the country.
I agree. There still has to be clean up -- and you need to get straight on who does it (big government) and there is going to be redesign and rezoning so that fires such as these can be defended against or prevented. A big part of that will be condos and multi-family apartments in place of the single family homes that WERE there. Difficult to defend places -- hillsides with limited transportation options, etc. -- won't be allowed to rebuild at all. Proven to be too dangerous.
So will there be redevelopment? You bet. On condo/MFH terms for a great deal of it, with extensive revamping of transportation systems.
But john do you think the market will accept condos MF in pacific Palisades ??? those owners bought sfr on big nice lots for a reason.. Myself I am not sure that those buyers would go for tight living conditions that are condos and for sure are not going to be renters..Unfortunately there will be a smaller population. People will move to escape taxes and insurance, and others (me included) only want single-family homes and shudder at the thought of condos and apartments (which, ironically, I have).
So will demand be as high? No. If you want to live in the area, though, then you're going to have to compromise. The days of "I built here, now save me" are over.
You also have the problem that even if you could build a single-family house in the area (and there will be some), your insurance premiums are going to be enormous. Jim's bleating about government being involved. I got news for him: the insurance companies are going to refuse to insure -- period -- or are going to charge premiums that would make Elon Musk wince. That's where the real negative effect on the market will be.
So it's condos in the Palisades. Might help bring prices down for the middle class who never thought they could live there..
to me if I was insurance now that all the fuel is burned seems to me the fire danger has passed at least for the next 5 too 10 years ( time frame for the brush to grow back.. news keep talking about forest management.. there are no forests in those areas is Brush and scraggly oaks..
I am sure your aware of the antiquated lot of record rules already on the books in LA county that could stop a lot of rebuilding unless they change those laws or codes.. And I am sure your aware of the CA SEQUA laws that stops building on antiquated lots .. - Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1yAgain, read what I actually wrote, the whole thing, it's got every detail.
Quote from @John Clark:
Your entire "detail and steps of the clean up" are, and I quote:Quote from @James Hamling:
How many fire claims you dealt with John?Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @Matthew Paul:
@John Clark There isnt much left thats toxic , it all went into the atmosphere .
Not an expert here but my Brother is a heavy equipment operator in Northern CA and did a lot of the fire clean up when those fires happened and he mentioned contractor might need hazard waste removal license.. FWIW
Jay, please tell that to Jim, whose unicorns and fairy dust response (earlier in the thread) to the problem is as follows:
"Also a non-starter is your hyperbolae; "toxic waste lot's"...... Really John, really."
I do wonder just how many people are going to leave California permanently from all this. It might even wind up losing another seat in the House of Representatives.
Me, MULTIPLE.
I actually had a fire MYSELF, yes personally.
I've navigated multiple rental property fires, nearly a dozen over the decades.
And yes, I've done fire restoration projects.
I laid out in detail the details and steps of the clean up. You just keep twisting things John so clearly your here to promote an agenda and not for intelligent discourse.
" And some level of clean-up will most likely be done for all private property via local government, as is SOP for disaster cleanup.Also SOP for such is individual property owners will, individually, address total site cleanup in concert with there insurance providers.
So the whole leaving toxic waste sites BS is just that, BS hyperbole"
***
No detail there, Jim, just a lot of wishful thinking on your part and two contradictory statements to boot -- that government will handle all the clean up (that's "big government" by the way) and that individual property owners "will" address "total site cleanup" with "[their] insurance providers."
So you agree to big government and are utterly silent as to unwilling/unable/irresponsible land owners and clean ups, and that's just for starters. Stop ignoring your own contradictions.
And of the fires and fire restorations you've dealt with, Jim, how many involved total and absolute destruction of the premises?
"Claims" are an insurance matter. I've dealt with claims. Eminent domain proceedings, too. Comes with the territory of being a litigation/trial attorney for almost 40 years. Property owner, too.
What's your experience with government powers for rezoning property use after a disaster? I'll give you a hint; the powers are very extensive, and for good reason.
If you don't understand some facet, ask questions, don't pretend that your feelings will be right because you lack knowledge and fact's on something.
I detailed LOCAL government will be on point. And they will. Supported by assorted support services related to disaster relief for those applicable parts. FEMA does not come in and take over literally everything, FEMA has certain scopes they cover, state covers some etc etc..
So again, as I detailed, there will FIRST be a general cleanup of the general area lead by this mish-mash of disaster relief agencies AND local government.
Local government is NOT "Big Government", there is a distinction between these 2.
Utilities will be among the first in for cleanup actions.
Than AFTER that base-line cleanup action is done which part of it is to establish access for all others, than things get into the next lower level of details.
Odd's are given the scale of it all there will be some level of general cleanup resources made available for private properties. This could be simple as a coordination of who the debris disposal transportation will be that everyone uses, so it's 1 entity vs 40 trying to get in and out cluttering up area.
But NO, TOTAL site cleanup for individual property owners is all but certain NOT to be done via government, be it BIG or local.
So again, there is steps to it all. They don't just roll in with D11's and clear the place.
Private Properties will NOT be made TOTAL cleared as in build ready for people. If you think that's how it works I challenge you to show me an example of when and where that happened.
For example, FL coordinated debris pickups as private property residents stacked things curb side. FL didn't come into homes and clear them out. People had to get that done, either themself, via vendors etc., and it was on private property owners to sort there insurance themself.
Is that enough detail? - Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yNot being from/in California, I'm not familiar with the specific laws of La La Land. As for the lack of burnable material in the Palisades and other areas now, insurers will want to rebuild reserves and augment reserves for the next time, not to mention not exposing themselves to risk on this scale again.
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
to me if I was insurance now that all the fuel is burned seems to me the fire danger has passed at least for the next 5 too 10 years ( time frame for the brush to grow back.. news keep talking about forest management.. there are no forests in those areas is Brush and scraggly oaks..
I am sure your aware of the antiquated lot of record rules already on the books in LA county that could stop a lot of rebuilding unless they change those laws or codes.. And I am sure your aware of the CA SEQUA laws that stops building on antiquated lots ..
what I see happening is that the government will simply cut the Gordian Knot by using eminent domain to seize properties and redesign/rezone the whole area so that it's more defensible against natural- and human-caused catastrophe. The plans will probably be developed while the government plans, carries out, or coerces, clean up, and puts liens on the properties being cleaned up. - Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1y
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Can’t sell before clean up, Matthew, no one will buy a toxic waste site.Quote from @Matthew Paul:
" I am from the government , and I am here to help "
This whole mess will be tied up in courts for years , between insurance companies , environmental groups , homeowners , it will just drag on . Anyone with insurance will be smart and take the money , sell the lot and move on .
You are absolutely right, though, the whole thing will take years to play out.Wrong John, yet again.....
You really don't know a single thing about Real Estate do you John?
YES, a person CAN sell without total site cleanup from a house fire. FACTS.
Oh, they can sell, Jim, just like one can sell "subject to." Who, though, is going to buy, and at what price, before clean up?
Generally it's a mix between (a) spec builders, the type who specialize in doing in-fill lot's (b) investors, as it is a normalized flip strategy (c) owner occupants, especially in high desire neighborhoods, who are a-ok with taking on the project and even some are excited that they get to build a new home in often old neighborhoods.
Yeah, it's a very normalized thing.
The current property owners take a settlement check from insurance, and vs rebuild they sell. Most often it's in free & clear properties but, in a high enough desire area like these, and with low enough mortgage balance, yup, some can 100% get enough on the sale to have it all make sense because as @Jay Hinrichs has pointed out that in these areas the majority value is in the land not the structures on the land.
So yes, I guarantee we will see people selling as-is and walking away.
And I also guarantee there is assorted investors right now getting prepped on marketing campaigns to try and market to these people to make purchase offers.
This is some of the highest valued residential land in the country.
I agree. There still has to be clean up -- and you need to get straight on who does it (big government) and there is going to be redesign and rezoning so that fires such as these can be defended against or prevented. A big part of that will be condos and multi-family apartments in place of the single family homes that WERE there. Difficult to defend places -- hillsides with limited transportation options, etc. -- won't be allowed to rebuild at all. Proven to be too dangerous.
So will there be redevelopment? You bet. On condo/MFH terms for a great deal of it, with extensive revamping of transportation systems.
But john do you think the market will accept condos MF in pacific Palisades ??? those owners bought sfr on big nice lots for a reason.. Myself I am not sure that those buyers would go for tight living conditions that are condos and for sure are not going to be renters..Unfortunately there will be a smaller population. People will move to escape taxes and insurance, and others (me included) only want single-family homes and shudder at the thought of condos and apartments (which, ironically, I have).
So will demand be as high? No. If you want to live in the area, though, then you're going to have to compromise. The days of "I built here, now save me" are over.
You also have the problem that even if you could build a single-family house in the area (and there will be some), your insurance premiums are going to be enormous. Jim's bleating about government being involved. I got news for him: the insurance companies are going to refuse to insure -- period -- or are going to charge premiums that would make Elon Musk wince. That's where the real negative effect on the market will be.
So it's condos in the Palisades. Might help bring prices down for the middle class who never thought they could live there..
to me if I was insurance now that all the fuel is burned seems to me the fire danger has passed at least for the next 5 too 10 years ( time frame for the brush to grow back.. news keep talking about forest management.. there are no forests in those areas is Brush and scraggly oaks..
I am sure your aware of the antiquated lot of record rules already on the books in LA county that could stop a lot of rebuilding unless they change those laws or codes.. And I am sure your aware of the CA SEQUA laws that stops building on antiquated lots ..Those won't apply.
Newsome got waiver passed for reconstruction.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/01/12/governor-newsom-signs-exec...
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @James Hamling:
Again, read what I actually wrote, the whole thing, it's got every detail.Quote from @John Clark:
Your entire "detail and steps of the clean up" are, and I quote:Quote from @James Hamling:
How many fire claims you dealt with John?Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @Matthew Paul:
@John Clark There isnt much left thats toxic , it all went into the atmosphere .
Not an expert here but my Brother is a heavy equipment operator in Northern CA and did a lot of the fire clean up when those fires happened and he mentioned contractor might need hazard waste removal license.. FWIW
Jay, please tell that to Jim, whose unicorns and fairy dust response (earlier in the thread) to the problem is as follows:
"Also a non-starter is your hyperbolae; "toxic waste lot's"...... Really John, really."
I do wonder just how many people are going to leave California permanently from all this. It might even wind up losing another seat in the House of Representatives.
Me, MULTIPLE.
I actually had a fire MYSELF, yes personally.
I've navigated multiple rental property fires, nearly a dozen over the decades.
And yes, I've done fire restoration projects.
I laid out in detail the details and steps of the clean up. You just keep twisting things John so clearly your here to promote an agenda and not for intelligent discourse.
" And some level of clean-up will most likely be done for all private property via local government, as is SOP for disaster cleanup.Also SOP for such is individual property owners will, individually, address total site cleanup in concert with there insurance providers.
So the whole leaving toxic waste sites BS is just that, BS hyperbole"
***
No detail there, Jim, just a lot of wishful thinking on your part and two contradictory statements to boot -- that government will handle all the clean up (that's "big government" by the way) and that individual property owners "will" address "total site cleanup" with "[their] insurance providers."
So you agree to big government and are utterly silent as to unwilling/unable/irresponsible land owners and clean ups, and that's just for starters. Stop ignoring your own contradictions.
And of the fires and fire restorations you've dealt with, Jim, how many involved total and absolute destruction of the premises?
"Claims" are an insurance matter. I've dealt with claims. Eminent domain proceedings, too. Comes with the territory of being a litigation/trial attorney for almost 40 years. Property owner, too.
What's your experience with government powers for rezoning property use after a disaster? I'll give you a hint; the powers are very extensive, and for good reason.
If you don't understand some facet, ask questions, don't pretend that your feelings will be right because you lack knowledge and fact's on something.
I detailed LOCAL government will be on point. And they will. Supported by assorted support services related to disaster relief for those applicable parts. FEMA does not come in and take over literally everything, FEMA has certain scopes they cover, state covers some etc etc..
So again, as I detailed, there will FIRST be a general cleanup of the general area lead by this mish-mash of disaster relief agencies AND local government.
Local government is NOT "Big Government", there is a distinction between these 2.
Utilities will be among the first in for cleanup actions.
Than AFTER that base-line cleanup action is done which part of it is to establish access for all others, than things get into the next lower level of details.
Odd's are given the scale of it all there will be some level of general cleanup resources made available for private properties. This could be simple as a coordination of who the debris disposal transportation will be that everyone uses, so it's 1 entity vs 40 trying to get in and out cluttering up area.
But NO, TOTAL site cleanup for individual property owners is all but certain NOT to be done via government, be it BIG or local.
So again, there is steps to it all. They don't just roll in with D11's and clear the place.
Private Properties will NOT be made TOTAL cleared as in build ready for people. If you think that's how it works I challenge you to show me an example of when and where that happened.
For example, FL coordinated debris pickups as private property residents stacked things curb side. FL didn't come into homes and clear them out. People had to get that done, either themself, via vendors etc., and it was on private property owners to sort there insurance themself.
Is that enough detail?First of all, government is government. "Big" government refers to powers, not level.
Second, you left out the fact that owners who don't/didn't clean up -- in Florida or elsewhere -- had their land cleaned up by the government (local ones too) and then the land was seized or liened if the owners/insurers dragged their collective feet. So yes, at one point or another (and fairly soon) the government (local/state/federal, "big" or "small") can coerce clean up.
Your scenario depends on responsible owners/insurers with assets, Jim. That's nice, but magical thinking. You also leave out the fact that the government has a duty to others who don't live in the area, but who have to pay taxes (coercion) for the firefighting and clean up, and the first responders, to mitigate their harms. That means government (big or small, local or Washington DC) redesigns and rezones and seizes land to effectuate the redesign and rezoning.
Sing and dance all you want, but nobody's going to be allowed to build in the hills anymore. Sad, as I am sure I would like the views and the area, but it makes perfect sense practically, financially, and legally.
- Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1y
Quote from @John Clark:
Not being from/in California, I'm not familiar with the specific laws of La La Land. As for the lack of burnable material in the Palisades and other areas now, insurers will want to rebuild reserves and augment reserves for the next time, not to mention not exposing themselves to risk on this scale again.Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
to me if I was insurance now that all the fuel is burned seems to me the fire danger has passed at least for the next 5 too 10 years ( time frame for the brush to grow back.. news keep talking about forest management.. there are no forests in those areas is Brush and scraggly oaks..
I am sure your aware of the antiquated lot of record rules already on the books in LA county that could stop a lot of rebuilding unless they change those laws or codes.. And I am sure your aware of the CA SEQUA laws that stops building on antiquated lots ..
what I see happening is that the government will simply cut the Gordian Knot by using eminent domain to seize properties and redesign/rezone the whole area so that it's more defensible against natural- and human-caused catastrophe. The plans will probably be developed while the government plans, carries out, or coerces, clean up, and puts liens on the properties being cleaned up.So, to no surprise, CA is doing exactly none of your private property taking schemes John.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/01/13/governor-newsom-proposes-b...
CA is doing the only viable option they have, fast tracking reconstruction of what was. There waiving regulations that would have impeded it, and are trying to get additional funding to cover anyone who had any lack of coverage.
So there it is, no exercising eminent domain for a quarter trillion dollars. There doing the simplest thing. Rebuilding as was.
I am not shocked at all.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yI'm not shocked either, but it won't last. There will be eminent domain -- lots of it -- and extensive redesign and rezoning. Time will tell.
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Not being from/in California, I'm not familiar with the specific laws of La La Land. As for the lack of burnable material in the Palisades and other areas now, insurers will want to rebuild reserves and augment reserves for the next time, not to mention not exposing themselves to risk on this scale again.Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
to me if I was insurance now that all the fuel is burned seems to me the fire danger has passed at least for the next 5 too 10 years ( time frame for the brush to grow back.. news keep talking about forest management.. there are no forests in those areas is Brush and scraggly oaks..
I am sure your aware of the antiquated lot of record rules already on the books in LA county that could stop a lot of rebuilding unless they change those laws or codes.. And I am sure your aware of the CA SEQUA laws that stops building on antiquated lots ..
what I see happening is that the government will simply cut the Gordian Knot by using eminent domain to seize properties and redesign/rezone the whole area so that it's more defensible against natural- and human-caused catastrophe. The plans will probably be developed while the government plans, carries out, or coerces, clean up, and puts liens on the properties being cleaned up.So, to no surprise, CA is doing exactly none of your private property taking schemes John.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/01/13/governor-newsom-proposes-b...
CA is doing the only viable option they have, fast tracking reconstruction of what was. There waiving regulations that would have impeded it, and are trying to get additional funding to cover anyone who had any lack of coverage.
So there it is, no exercising eminent domain for a quarter trillion dollars. There doing the simplest thing. Rebuilding as was.
I am not shocked at all.
- Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1y
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Again, read what I actually wrote, the whole thing, it's got every detail.Quote from @John Clark:
Your entire "detail and steps of the clean up" are, and I quote:Quote from @James Hamling:
How many fire claims you dealt with John?Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @Matthew Paul:
@John Clark There isnt much left thats toxic , it all went into the atmosphere .
Not an expert here but my Brother is a heavy equipment operator in Northern CA and did a lot of the fire clean up when those fires happened and he mentioned contractor might need hazard waste removal license.. FWIW
Jay, please tell that to Jim, whose unicorns and fairy dust response (earlier in the thread) to the problem is as follows:
"Also a non-starter is your hyperbolae; "toxic waste lot's"...... Really John, really."
I do wonder just how many people are going to leave California permanently from all this. It might even wind up losing another seat in the House of Representatives.
Me, MULTIPLE.
I actually had a fire MYSELF, yes personally.
I've navigated multiple rental property fires, nearly a dozen over the decades.
And yes, I've done fire restoration projects.
I laid out in detail the details and steps of the clean up. You just keep twisting things John so clearly your here to promote an agenda and not for intelligent discourse.
" And some level of clean-up will most likely be done for all private property via local government, as is SOP for disaster cleanup.Also SOP for such is individual property owners will, individually, address total site cleanup in concert with there insurance providers.
So the whole leaving toxic waste sites BS is just that, BS hyperbole"
***
No detail there, Jim, just a lot of wishful thinking on your part and two contradictory statements to boot -- that government will handle all the clean up (that's "big government" by the way) and that individual property owners "will" address "total site cleanup" with "[their] insurance providers."
So you agree to big government and are utterly silent as to unwilling/unable/irresponsible land owners and clean ups, and that's just for starters. Stop ignoring your own contradictions.
And of the fires and fire restorations you've dealt with, Jim, how many involved total and absolute destruction of the premises?
"Claims" are an insurance matter. I've dealt with claims. Eminent domain proceedings, too. Comes with the territory of being a litigation/trial attorney for almost 40 years. Property owner, too.
What's your experience with government powers for rezoning property use after a disaster? I'll give you a hint; the powers are very extensive, and for good reason.
If you don't understand some facet, ask questions, don't pretend that your feelings will be right because you lack knowledge and fact's on something.
I detailed LOCAL government will be on point. And they will. Supported by assorted support services related to disaster relief for those applicable parts. FEMA does not come in and take over literally everything, FEMA has certain scopes they cover, state covers some etc etc..
So again, as I detailed, there will FIRST be a general cleanup of the general area lead by this mish-mash of disaster relief agencies AND local government.
Local government is NOT "Big Government", there is a distinction between these 2.
Utilities will be among the first in for cleanup actions.
Than AFTER that base-line cleanup action is done which part of it is to establish access for all others, than things get into the next lower level of details.
Odd's are given the scale of it all there will be some level of general cleanup resources made available for private properties. This could be simple as a coordination of who the debris disposal transportation will be that everyone uses, so it's 1 entity vs 40 trying to get in and out cluttering up area.
But NO, TOTAL site cleanup for individual property owners is all but certain NOT to be done via government, be it BIG or local.
So again, there is steps to it all. They don't just roll in with D11's and clear the place.
Private Properties will NOT be made TOTAL cleared as in build ready for people. If you think that's how it works I challenge you to show me an example of when and where that happened.
For example, FL coordinated debris pickups as private property residents stacked things curb side. FL didn't come into homes and clear them out. People had to get that done, either themself, via vendors etc., and it was on private property owners to sort there insurance themself.
Is that enough detail?First of all, government is government. "Big" government refers to powers, not level.
Second, you left out the fact that owners who don't/didn't clean up -- in Florida or elsewhere -- had their land cleaned up by the government (local ones too) and then the land was seized or liened if the owners/insurers dragged their collective feet. So yes, at one point or another (and fairly soon) the government (local/state/federal, "big" or "small") can coerce clean up.
Your scenario depends on responsible owners/insurers with assets, Jim. That's nice, but magical thinking. You also leave out the fact that the government has a duty to others who don't live in the area, but who have to pay taxes (coercion) for the firefighting and clean up, and the first responders, to mitigate their harms. That means government (big or small, local or Washington DC) redesigns and rezones and seizes land to effectuate the redesign and rezoning.
Sing and dance all you want, but nobody's going to be allowed to build in the hills anymore. Sad, as I am sure I would like the views and the area, but it makes perfect sense practically, financially, and legally.
Just curious but what color is the sky in your world John?
It's too bad you don't have a pic on your profile because this is all I can picture as you rant:
- Severna Park, MD · Member since 2013 · 7k+ posts · 7k+ votes1y
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @Matthew Paul:
@John Clark There isnt much left thats toxic , it all went into the atmosphere .
Not an expert here but my Brother is a heavy equipment operator in Northern CA and did a lot of the fire clean up when those fires happened and he mentioned contractor might need hazard waste removal license.. FWIWIts California , you probably need a permit to do just about anything as long as you pay the fee
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yThat’s no different from any other state. Pay to play.
Quote from @Matthew Paul:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @Matthew Paul:
@John Clark There isnt much left thats toxic , it all went into the atmosphere .
Not an expert here but my Brother is a heavy equipment operator in Northern CA and did a lot of the fire clean up when those fires happened and he mentioned contractor might need hazard waste removal license.. FWIWIts California , you probably need a permit to do just about anything as long as you pay the fee
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.